Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v. Remington Consumer Products Ltd.
European Union Court of Justice
[2002] ECR I-5475, Case C-299/99 (2002)
- Written by Margot Parmenter, JD
Facts
In 1966, Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV (Philips) (plaintiff) produced an electric razor with three rotating heads arranged in the shape of a triangle. In 1985, Philips trademarked the graphic depiction of the razor head in the UK. In 1995, Remington Consumer Products Ltd. (Remington) (defendant) began selling a similar product that it called the DT 55, a razor with three circular rotating heads arranged in the shape of a triangle. Philips sued Remington in the UK for trademark infringement, and Remington counterclaimed, seeking revocation of Philips’s mark. The UK court, applying European Union (EU) Directive 89/104/EEC (the directive), found for Remington and issued an order revoking Philips’s trademark on the grounds that it lacked a distinctive character and was incapable of distinguishing Philips’s products from those of competitors. The court also concluded that the trademark was invalid because it comprised a shape necessary to obtain a technical result and therefore fell into a category of signs excluded from trademark eligibility by Article 3 of the directive. Philips appealed, and the court of appeal stayed proceedings to seek a preliminary ruling from the EU Court of Justice.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
